nfreeman

Enough of this already. 50-60 million people are going to vote for him. They aren't all, or even mostly, bigots or neanderthals. If you have facts or analysis, please post away. But this -- and you've delivered quite a few like it -- is obnoxious.

Respectfully, the answers to these 2 items could easily be "nothing changed for Evander other than running into a couple of skanky scammers" and "the real problem is the 2 skanky scammers he ran into." I think the real answers are that these are not the inquiry, nor the real problem. The inquiry is "what happened" and the real problem is "we don't know and yet we speculate based on a the highly tenuous assumption that we do know."

I think he was taking issue with TBPhd's theory that not being under the microscope in Buffalo (as he was in Winnipeg) may have freed Kane's inner beast -- i.e. he wasn't under the microscope in ATL either, and there were no sexual assault allegations there, so the theory doesn't hold water. I think they call that a "moment of clarity."

You may have gotten hung up on "ttbomk", which I believe is Taro-speak for "to the best of my knowledge".

Irony!

Whether we'll get to see the video is an interesting question. I would think that if it exonerates Kane, his side will find a way to release it (and, likely, if it indicates guilt, the other side will find a way). Maybe one of our resident litigators can advise as to whether court proceedings in WNY are televised? As for PLF -- I agree that we'll probably never know that either (or the facts behind a million other local sports stories for that matter). I guess the difference is, depending on what you believe about the PLF incident, the worst-case scenario is that someone mistakenly believes that TP is an incompetent meddler, or that PLF is a mercurial and erratic presence in a professional office, or something like that -- but in Kane's case, people could mistakenly believe that someone is a rapist, which is a heckuva thing to think about someone if untrue. I've got nuttin'. I think I'm vaguely recollecting something that was posted in this thread. Also, was the young lady in question definitely related to the accuser? Or just someone with the same name who may or may not have been related?

Here's something on Kane that occurred to me: Kane was under a microscope and frequently criticized in Winnipeg. Yet until the December alleged incident in Buffalo, there were no accusations or even rumors concerning sexual assault. It seems a bit strange that upon arriving in a new city, having been given a chance at a clean slate, he would turn into a marauding rapist. Not impossible, of course, but not really logical either. As for the notion that the accusers in the alleged Bottoms Up incident were of questionable character, while the accuser in the alleged December incident was a "nice girl" -- wasn't there some indication that the 2 alleged incidents were related, and that the accusers knew each other? My point here is not to defend someone who assaults women -- of course, if that is the case, I want him gone as much as anyone else here does. My point is just that no one here knows any of the facts, other than (i) the BPD investigated both incidents, dropped one entirely and deemed the other one "non-criminal" and (ii) young athletes are frequently targeted by scammers, including female scammers. I think that Sabres fans, and posters here, should not be so quick to run him out of town. We need some facts.

I watched season 1 and didn't love it (understanding that most critics did). I'm out on season 2.

Here are a few examples from the past couple of days: All of these are obnoxious and insulting to those who disagree with you. And the answer isn't for others to ignore your posts. It's for you to improve your posting.

Both of you need to chill. I've stayed out of this thread in the effort to keep my BP down and my faith in humanity intact, but unfortunately have received multiple reports in the past few days regarding the 2 of you. K-9 -- your tone isn't quite as obnoxious as it has been previously, but it's still consistently the most abrasive in this thread. Do better or keep quiet. Hank -- your responses are over the line. If you disagree with K-9, explain why, with reasoning and facts. Cursing him out adds zero value to this thread -- just the opposite. I recognize that this thread is necessarily going to elicit passionate conversation, which is why there is more latitude here than in other threads, but it's still important to communicate in a respectful manner.

Not publicly. Anonymously.

Wasn't there something to the effect that the December alleged incident occurred in his car? And the cops searched his car, didn't find anything and so dropped it? That is a highly vague recollection though -- I could be completely out to lunch. Well, you're assuming away the whole "guilty or innocent" question there, innit? Bottom line is that we have no idea how he behaved or whether she is being truthful. It's certainly possible that he forced himself on her. It's also certainly possible that she is shaking him down or is PO'd at being told to get lost. Or a number of other scenarios.

Regarding the December alleged incident -- is there any evidence that supports the accuser's version of events? If so, why did the BPD decline to pursue it?

Well, I finally saw the movie "Draft Day" and against my better judgment, the shot of the field house and then the stadium got me pretty psyched. Then of course the inclusion of Russ Brandon, decision-maker at the top of the organization, brought me back to earth.

Good stuff yse and welcome!

Now that is some high-quality life advice. Well done sir.

...which perhaps indicates questionable veracity of the allegations. I've said this before, but I think we need to wait until the facts are in before making any determinations -- not just those that are legally justifiable in a criminal court, but determinations as to Kane's character. FWIW, whenever I've seen extended interviews with Kane, I've come away with positive impressions. I recognize, of course, that YMMV.

Glad you liked it! I really wasn't baiting you, nor do I think that poll is especially meaningful. I was just surprised, both at Trump being in the lead and by the margin.

LA Times: Trump 47.0%, HRC 40.4%. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html Holy mackerel. Also -- this is outstanding:

Just so we're clear -- this is because of the incident last year, in which no charges of any kind were brought and no specific allegations were made (let alone proven), plus the incident this year, in which we have unproven, unattributed and unresponded-to allegations that the police have decided are non-criminal in nature?

Fair point. I was referring to the description of events that was linked upthread -- I believe that's been the only public comment by any of the accusers, but I could be wrong.

The answer almost certainly arises not out of race but out of different facts in the 2 situations. Speaking of facts -- we still have no idea what they are. All we have are unproven allegations from an unnamed woman who was in a bar at 3:00 AM. Well, whether he made "mistakes" depends on what actually happened, which we don't know, innit?

I'm finally getting around to watching "People vs OJ Siimpson" and it is outstanding.

There was a reasonably positive discussion of the Bills on "Ballers" this week.

There is indeed plenty of jumping to conclusions going on around here, primarily from those in the "see no evil, fear no evil" crowd. Here's what we know: The killer was an 18-year-old Muslim male with Iranian citizenship. He reportedly shouted "allahu akbar" as he was firing. He targeted an archetypal Western civilization target in a McDonald's. 12 hours after the shooting, a member of one of the most politically correct governments on the planet said that as of the present time there is no known connection with Isis. That's what we know.